Author Topic: McG  (Read 5250 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

NEON MERCURY

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 3853
  • Respect: +16
McG
« on: September 21, 2003, 09:07:53 PM »
0
.... :yabbse-thumbdown: ..

.also other than Tarseem.. are there any other dirs. that go by one name.??..

©brad

  • Admin
  • *****
  • Posts: 4514
  • Respect: +224
McG
« Reply #1 on: September 21, 2003, 09:22:21 PM »
0
i respect his energy and enthusiasm. its refreshing to see such qualities in a young filmmaker, instead of the 'i know it all-get the fuck out of my way' attitude many young filmmakers have.

i dug charlie's angels, i thought it was fun. i have yet to see the sequel. i think w/ a have decent script mcg could turn out a very good film.

Alexandro

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 1742
  • Respect: +470
McG
« Reply #2 on: September 22, 2003, 12:56:55 PM »
0
pure style and no substance of any kind...even for an action film like charlie's angels...the sequel i snot even a movie, if you ask me...it's all chopped to give you the idea that a lot of stuff is happening when actually nothing interesting never happens in the whole movie...

his music videos are all the same: saturated colors wirh some computer generated image behind the performers and some hot girls dancing around. he does this over and over and over, he has no imagination, or at least hasn't shown that...all the action sequences on both ca movies are rehashed versions of better action sequences in infinetely better movies...

is just pure garbage...

taintedlove

  • The Call to Adventure
  • *
  • Posts: 4
  • Respect: 0
McG
« Reply #3 on: October 02, 2003, 04:10:37 AM »
0
McG, meet Mario Van Peeples.
-Prince directed 'Under The Cherry Moon'...I guess that counts for a one-name director with no talent, huh?

modage

  • Admin
  • *****
  • Posts: 10769
  • Respect: +705
    • Floating Heads
McG
« Reply #4 on: October 04, 2003, 05:02:08 PM »
0
i just remembered something. the other day i was talking to a woman who teaches film at some college around here and so (since she has an interest), i asked her what her favorite movies from this year were.  she said the Charlies Angels: Full Throttle was the best thing she's seen all year.  and made comparisons from McG to Orson Welles, and talked about how it was brilliant because there was no plot.  it was just "pure cinema" with the images and sounds and such.  i was like, ummm... okay.
Christopher Nolan's directive was clear to everyone in the cast and crew: Use CGI only as a last resort.

MacGuffin

  • Admin
  • *****
  • Posts: 22985
  • Respect: +639
McG
« Reply #5 on: October 04, 2003, 05:08:10 PM »
0
Quote from: themodernage02
and made comparisons from McG to Orson Welles, and talked about how it was brilliant because there was no plot.


Oh, how I wish the comparison would include the studio taking that film away from him.
“Don't think about making art, just get it done. Let everyone else decide if it's good or bad, whether they love it or hate it. While they are deciding, make even more art.” - Andy Warhol


Skeleton FilmWorks

Ghostboy

  • Admin
  • *****
  • Posts: 4892
  • Respect: +377
    • http://www.road-dog-productions.com/
McG
« Reply #6 on: October 04, 2003, 07:48:05 PM »
0
I don't really have anything much to say about McG, but I liked Charlies Angels 2 a lot.

Weak2ndAct

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 1153
  • Self Portrait
  • Respect: +9
McG
« Reply #7 on: October 04, 2003, 09:24:19 PM »
0
I like Charlie's Angels waaaaaay too much.  I really dig b/c of McG's obvious enthusiasm in every scene, no matter how pointless what we're seeing is.  The whole thing was goofy and fun.  

But goddaaaaaaaaaamn, did that mofo drop the ball in part 2.  The fun was gone for me.  The special effects... eh.  My biggest gripe was that they tried to do TOO much.  Like have a dirtbike explode midair and have it catapult Diaz to the back of another?  Riding planks down the tow cables?  And the supposed 'death scene' at the hands of Moore is so mind-boggling-ly bad-- were they trying to repeat Drew going out on the window in Part 1, one scene that was actually great?  I dunno.  I know I'm reading too much into such a goofy movie, but I hate it when directors get a little too much money and freedom and lose their minds.  Sometimes the man breathin' down your back is a good thing (as with part one).

Ghostboy

  • Admin
  • *****
  • Posts: 4892
  • Respect: +377
    • http://www.road-dog-productions.com/
McG
« Reply #8 on: October 04, 2003, 09:30:14 PM »
0
Which is funny because I didn't like CA 1 nearly as much.

MrBurgerKing

  • The Magic Flight
  • ****
  • Posts: 636
  • Respect: +23
McG
« Reply #9 on: October 04, 2003, 09:31:22 PM »
0
I feel sorry for McG... his fate was sealed at birth when his parents put the Mc in there.

MacGuffin

  • Admin
  • *****
  • Posts: 22985
  • Respect: +639
McG
« Reply #10 on: October 04, 2003, 10:36:07 PM »
0
Quote from: Weak2ndAct
I like Charlie's Angels waaaaaay too much.  I really dig b/c of McG's obvious enthusiasm in every scene, no matter how pointless what we're seeing is.  The whole thing was goofy and fun.  

But goddaaaaaaaaaamn, did that mofo drop the ball in part 2.  The fun was gone for me.  The special effects... eh.  My biggest gripe was that they tried to do TOO much.  Like have a dirtbike explode midair and have it catapult Diaz to the back of another?  Riding planks down the tow cables?  And the supposed 'death scene' at the hands of Moore is so mind-boggling-ly bad-- were they trying to repeat Drew going out on the window in Part 1, one scene that was actually great?  I dunno.  I know I'm reading too much into such a goofy movie, but I hate it when directors get a little too much money and freedom and lose their minds.  Sometimes the man breathin' down your back is a good thing (as with part one).


I'm with you. I was surprised how much I liked the first one because I was not expecting much. It didn't take itself seriously and it was a lot of fun. So I was kinda looking forward to the second one; it had a pretty good trailer. But my God, I so hated the second and the more I think about it, the more I feel it is the worst movie I have seen this year. It was just a string of scenes ripped-off from other movies with no attempt at a story. The first one also had Bill Murray, who is funnier with his pinky than Bernie Mack is with his entire body.
“Don't think about making art, just get it done. Let everyone else decide if it's good or bad, whether they love it or hate it. While they are deciding, make even more art.” - Andy Warhol


Skeleton FilmWorks

Weak2ndAct

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 1153
  • Self Portrait
  • Respect: +9
McG
« Reply #11 on: October 04, 2003, 10:38:22 PM »
0
Exactly MacG-- and wtf is with Bernie hitting a bomb away from the premiere w/ a pole or something?  What was the ending about anyway?  It still makes no sense to me.

NEON MERCURY

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 3853
  • Respect: +16
McG
« Reply #12 on: October 05, 2003, 12:49:56 AM »
0
Quote from: MrBurgerKing
I feel sorry for McG... his fate was sealed at birth when his parents put the Mc in there.


LoL...........

SoNowThen

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 4536
  • Respect: +9
    • 24/30 Cinema
McG
« Reply #13 on: October 05, 2003, 12:51:43 AM »
0
fuck, I can't take it anymore..... who is McG????????
Those who say that the totalitarian state of the Soviet Union was not "real" Marxism also cannot admit that one simple feature of Marxism makes totalitarianism necessary:  the rejection of civil society. Since civil society is the sphere of private activity, its abolition and replacement by political society means that nothing private remains. That is already the essence of totalitarianism; and the moralistic practice of the trendy Left, which regards everything as political and sometimes reveals its hostility to free speech, does nothing to contradict this implication.

When those who hated capital and consumption (and Jews) in the 20th century murdered some hundred million people, and the poster children for the struggle against international capitalism and America are now fanatical Islamic terrorists, this puts recent enthusiasts in an awkward position. Most of them are too dense and shameless to appreciate it, and far too many are taken in by the moralistic and paternalistic rhetoric of the Left.

Ernie

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 1394
  • Respect: +3
McG
« Reply #14 on: October 05, 2003, 12:58:35 AM »
0
Oh, I love McG! I mean, for what he's done so far, I think he could be really really good. It's refreshing to see the kind of movies he makes. I think he's what Brett Ratner wants to be, he tries to make the kind of movies McG has so far and he fails each time. Seriously, I just finally saw Charlie's Angels II and couldn't believe it one-upped the first one, which I just thought was great...one of the best films of 2000, CA II is one of the best of this year. They both remind me that hollywood is still capable of putting out good films and that makes me happy. I wish there were more hollywood directors like McG that just want to put out funny, entertaining movies that actually are funny and entertaining. He's a little like Spielberg in that respect (nothing like Welles), but a little less serious. He seems to enjoy it all too. I'm looking forward to what he does next, he's great. I hope to have his energy as a filmmaker.

 

DMCA & Copyright | Terms & Conditions | Privacy Policy